Theft of property of any kind is a risk any consumer, or insurer, undertakes when property is purchased. As computing devices, such as laptops, cell phones, smart devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs), MP3 players, etc. continue to proliferate, deterring theft of those devices in a simple and cost effective manner will appeal to consumers of all types. Today, no such simple means exists for deterring theft of computing devices of all varieties and kinds. As these devices continue to proliferate in the marketplace, the ability to include such a simple, but effective means for deterring theft will be of predictable significance in the marketplace.
There are related systems which attempt to address theft deterrence of personal property. For instance, a fair amount of attention has been devoted to car theft, a crime that leaves the owner of a stolen vehicle in a seemingly helpless situation. The problem is that once a vehicle is stolen, the vehicle can be hidden fairly easily so that it is out of the plain view. Searching for a stolen vehicle can be time consuming since vehicles can be moved over great distances relatively quickly.
In this regard, automobile theft protection devices have been around for approximately 30 years, with most of these devices focus on deterring theft. However, a recent trend has been towards the recovery of stolen vehicles as well. There are now several products that aid in stolen vehicle recovery. These devices include vehicle identification numbers, window etching, steering wheel locks, brake and gas pedal locks, transmission locks, car alarm cut off switches, and police trackers. While many of these devices lower the chances of vehicle theft, few increase the odds of recovering a stolen vehicle. What is lacking in many of these devices is the ability to automatically contact the owner and report that the vehicle has been stolen, which makes vehicle recovery a tedious process as hidden vehicles are difficult to find. Moreover, these solutions are tailored to particular components of the vehicle, such as the gas pedal, and thus are custom jobs, not portable to other components of the vehicle.
Some car tracking systems place a global positioning system (GPS) device in the vehicle so that the device can report the location of the car to a computer, which displays the car's location on a map. One such company that implements such a system is LoJack, Inc. under product name LoJack. LoJack is a device that is installed in a vehicle but is normally turned off. When the owner of the vehicle notices that their car has been stolen, they call LoJack, Inc. (or the police) and the device is enabled for tracking the vehicle.
As illustrated in FIG. 1A, the LoJack system consists of installing a small, silent transmitter T in a hidden place in the vehicle V allowing the police to track the transmitter T. Thus, as illustrated in FIG. 1B, when a user suspects vehicle theft, the user places a call into police station P (step a). Then, the police transmits a signal to transmitter T (step b), which retrieves its location via GPS technologies (step c) and transmits its location to the police station P (step d) so that the police can track down the physical location of the car. Thus, LoJack becomes activated once the police are involved. Other ways of triggering steps b-d can be employed as well. For instance, LoJack can be used in conjunction with a shock sensor with customized sensitivity so that when the car is alarmed, a sudden jar to the car triggers the operation of transmitter T. Similarly, a perimeter sensor can be employed that detects entry into the vehicle through motion detection technology.
Major drawbacks to the LoJack system include: (1) the time for the transmitter T to report its position can be as much as an hour, (2) LoJack typically doesn't automatically activate itself to report that it is being stolen, (3) the transmitter T cannot be transferred from one vehicle to another, (4) GPS works effectively only if the vehicle is outdoors, (5) the LoJack device, if discovered, can be removed by clever thief and (6) it is only available in a few states and major cities.
Other GPS tracking systems have been proposed that reduce the time it takes to locate a stolen vehicle by having a device automatically report its position. For instance, the system proposed in Dr. Joseph Picone's “GTS: GPS Tracking System” (March, 2003) is set apart from other vehicle tracking solutions in that the owner can track their vehicle. The GTS proposes a system (A) wherein it can be detected that the vehicle has been stolen, (B) wherein the transmitter can determine its location by latitude and longitude, (C) wherein the transmitter can report its position to the owner of the vehicle, (D) wherein the owner can disable the car from his or her own personal computer, (E) wherein the transmitter is small enough to remain discreetly hidden in the vehicle, (F) wherein the device operates with low enough power consumption in sleep mode so that the device does not quickly drain the car battery while the vehicle is parked, (G) wherein an optional battery backup is included in case the car battery is disconnected and (H) wherein the owner is allowed to poll the GTS for its location, whether the car is stolen or not.
In order to detect that the vehicle has been stolen, the proposed GTS requires the use of a previously installed car alarm. It monitor the activity of the car alarm siren to determine if it is being stolen, and it differentiates between the car alarm being armed, disarmed, or set off. If the vehicle begins to move, the GTS uses a cellular modem to report its position to the owner. Disabling the vehicle can be accomplished by opening a relay that is used to remove power from the vehicle's fuel pump.
If it does not have a car alarm with which to work, the owner can still contact the GTS from a computer and disable the car, but the GTS will not automatically detect when the car has been stolen.
The problem remains, however, that a proficient thief can disable or bypass nearly any car alarm. In this regard, neither LoJack, nor GTS (or any other system that hides a device in a vehicle) are immune to such practices. Accordingly, while the device remains hidden so that it can operate inconspicuously, a clever thief will determine the location of the device and disable its operation.
Thus, tracking systems for vehicles would suffer from a number of disadvantages if one attempted to apply them to wireless computing devices. Specifically, as noted, GPS works well only if it is outdoors. Moreover, as a physically divisible component of the car, the transmitter device can be removed if discovered.
However, there has been some effort devoted to tracking laptops. According to insurance company, Safeware, Inc., 591,000 laptops were stolen in the U.S. in 2001, with an estimated 95% of the stolen laptops never recovered. Thus, various anti-theft tracking software and hardware have been developed to provide a last line of defense against permanent loss of laptop and data, which come into play after the laptop is taken.
Exemplary anti-theft tracking software works as follows. First, software is purchased and installed on a laptop. Once the software is installed, a small, hidden tracking program is activated. This program runs in the background. The software communicates with a monitoring point, dependent on the laptop being connected to the Internet. One possibility is that through the Internet, the program occasionally sends it's location to a monitoring server or email address. Another method is that it provides location information only when you report it stolen and a recovery effort is initiated.
If the laptop is stolen, the monitoring and recovery center is contacted. Most software comes with a recovery service which is initiated when you call and report your laptop stolen by phone, email or on the Web. The recovery process then starts with the monitoring company attempting to contact the stolen computer. If it is found connected to the Internet, the company attempt to work with law enforcement to recover the laptop by obtaining information about the IP address from the Internet Service Provider (ISP).
Not all tracking software survives the hard drive being formatted. Also, sometimes, if a piece of hardware can be installed, such as an add-on board, or if the hard drive is removed, the PC tracking software no longer functions. Moreover, a thief should not be able to Remove or Uninstall the software to turn off the tracking or use a Process Viewer to view and kill the program. In essence, because PC tracking is software, it is easily circumvented by sophisticated hackers.
Another proposed system, termed the Xilinx solution, provides tools to combat phone theft. Xilinx proposes remote disabling of the keypad of a cell phone by the mobile phone operator using IRL (Internet Reconfigurable Logic) technology. When returned to its owner, the handset can then be reprogrammed via an IRL bitstream to enable the keypad again. IRL technology enables the remote upgrading or programming process of CPLD (Complex Programmable Logic Devices) or FPGA (Filed Programmable Gate Arrays) hardware over any kind of network, including wireless. Using the Xilinx solution, it is virtually impossible for the cell phone to be reactivated or for data to be retrieved from the handset by the thief or hacker.
The design security aspects of Xilinx are not only buried within the layers of the device, but are also scattered throughout the die to make their detection impossible. Accordingly, Xilinx provides the following design security combination: (1) Prevention of accidental/purposeful overwriting or read back of the configuration pattern, (2) Blocking visual or electrical detection of the configuration pattern, (3) Automatic device lockdown in response to electrical or laser tampering and (4) Physical implementation of the protection scheme that is virtually undetectable.
By utilizing Xilinx to remotely disable the hardware within a stolen mobile phone, phone operators and manufacturers can help remove the incentive for theft. While the Xilinx solution provides some advantage to consumers and manufacturers alike, the Xilinx solution uses microcontrollers as a functional requirement of the design, e.g., the keyboard interface, which allow remote disabling of that function. Accordingly, to implement the Xilinx solution, specific design choices relating to microcontroller selection are required in order to integrate them the solution into existing designs. Additionally, the design is hardwired such that to apply the technology to a different part of the cell phone, e.g., the antenna, one would need to re-design the microcontroller requirements from scratch. Moreover, the Xilinx solution describes disabling only one part of the overall system.
Still further, the Xilinx solution does not have a network transport (wireless or otherwise) built in, since it relies on some form of communications network being available as part of the device being protected, nor does Xilinx contemplate in advance any form of network infrastructure. The Xilinx solution also discloses that the instruction to disable devices is transmitted over an Internet connection (IRL) highlighting the need for a high level Internet connection and corresponding Internet service provider to be available to the device.
From a consumer perspective, reducing the potential concern about theft or loss of property can remove a block to purchase electronic goods. Accordingly, there is a need in the art for a way of deterring theft of computing devices that is simple and cost-effective. Further, there is a need for a way to deter theft that may be applied to multiple parts of the computing device. Still further, there is a need for a way to deter theft that leverages an existing network transport of an existing network infrastructure via the inclusion of a wireless component, which cannot be easily removed.